Letters: Prop. 29

U-T San Diego

I was very disappointed to read the U-T San Diego endorsement of Prop. 29 (“A vote for public health,” Editorial, May 9). This onerous, regressive tax is wrong on many levels. One of those levels is economic.

It has been proven many times, but many still fail to grasp the basic economic concept: The more you tax something, the less tax revenue you get from it. Why? Because consumers will alter their behavior, spending, lifestyle, etc., to offset or avoid the increased price of that good or service.

Letters and commentary policy

The U-T welcomes and encourages community dialogue on important public matters. Please visit this page for more details on our letters and commentaries policy.

For beleaguered smokers, already paying exorbitant taxes on tobacco products, this massive tax increase would drive them to either quit, buy their tobacco elsewhere (e.g., Indian reservations or out of state) or turn to the black market, to cite a few examples. The net result is much less tax revenue than the simplistic calculations used by Prop. 29 proponents would have us believe. – Ken Zolkoski, San Diego

It reads: a tax on cigarettes and tobacco products. It doesn’t read: raising any kind of taxes other than a tax on cigarettes and tobacco products.

Two, it’s about the cancer research – you know, like curing a horrific disease. Whether it brings more jobs to California is not up to this proposition. If you are voting no because it doesn’t promise you a job, you’re allowing to be psychologically played with. Aren’t you fed up with that? You get enough of that out of today’s politics. More rich people influencing you to do it their way.

Three, if you don’t use tobacco products, you have nothing to worry about, but, most importantly, the campaign for you to vote No on Prop. 29 has major funding by Philip Morris USA and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Can’t imagine why they would want you to really vote no. Can you? – B.K. Bentler, San Diego

In response to “The campaign silly season” (Editorial, April 23):

Many of your readers may be unaware that Proposition 29 targets for taxation an entire group of California consumers that has nothing at all to do with cigarettes or Big Tobacco. These are buyers of premium handmade cigars and pipe tobacco. Under Prop. 29 the excise tax on their products will increase by 73 percent. This is unfair taxation, and those of us who purchase these products are given no choice but to engage in the battle over Prop. 29.

Prop. 29 calls for $750 million annually in new taxes to be spent on medical research but not a single penny goes toward solving the state’s current financial problems or toward education or public safety. In the meantime, it creates a huge new bureaucracy, unaccountable to the governor or legislature, with more political appointees. It also duplicates research programs already in place in the federal government. With all the problems California has, does it now need to go into the medical research business? – Charlie Hennegan, Owner, Liberty Tobacco, Clairemont Mesa

Try again in November with a proposition that taxes the online cigarette sales. Obviously cancer researchers want to restore their tax funding that the recession and online cigarette sales have washed away, but “backfill” should sound off the Watchdog alarm.

When Prop. 67 (2004) proposed increasing the telephone surcharge to cover emergency medical services, there was no “backfill” attempt to calculate lost revenue from phone charges dropped due to the higher tax. This is crockland. Just let the tax go to the Legislature, and let the schools get their cut – for school nurses. – Patti Martin, Downtown San Diego